Australian Labor Party

Australian Labor Party
The Party for all Australians

Saturday 20 September 2014

Nothing Like Talk Of A War To Silence A Small Target Opposition Leader | newmatilda.com

Nothing Like Talk Of A War To Silence A Small Target Opposition Leader | newmatilda.com

Nothing Like Talk Of A War To Silence A Small Target Opposition Leader



By Ben Eltham





The
Labor Party's small target strategy has condemned them to approval or
silence while the 'War on Terror' plays out. Ben Eltham explains. 




Initiative in politics is an important, if nebulous, quality.


In the party political sense – and, like it or not, parliamentary
major party politics remains the single most important driver of change
in our society – initiative means the freedom of politicians to act: to
define the agenda, to move freely across political terrain, to lead
rather than follow.



Without the initiative, political parties find it very difficult to
gain traction. The appalling spectacle of Julia Gillard’s final year in
office is a good example. Despite some clear legislative victories and a
world-famous parliamentary oration, the Gillard government’s
week-to-week stumbles and pratfalls meant it was rarely in control of
its political destiny.



For much of 2014, it has been the Coalition’s turn to experience the vicissitudes of government. Labor has had the initiative.  The turning point was early in May,
that disastrous month in which the Coalition allowed the hardline
Commission of Audit to confuse and overshadow Joe Hockey’s first budget
(which was plenty austere in its own right).



Bogged down in domestic issues, the government has found it tough
going ever since. Attention has focused on Joe Hockey – understandably,
given the woeful performance of the Treasurer. But the gaffes and
stumbles are merely symptoms of a deeper malaise.



Voters don’t want the government to dismantle Australia’s social
democracy. The sentiment is apparent in both opinion polls, in the
nervous whispers that began to emanate from Coalition backbenchers, and
in the ordinary remarks of individual voters.



The Coalition’s trust deficit is exacerbated by the fact that it
never promised to radically reshape Australia’s social safety net.
Abbott’s much ridiculed promises of “no cuts” to health, education,
pensions and the ABC have garnered plenty of coverage since they were
broken, but the bigger picture is that by committing to maintaining
health and education spending, Abbott appeared to be accepting the
social democratic consensus of the Rudd-Gillard years. All that has gone
by the wayside.



What did Labor do with that initiative? Worryingly for Bill Shorten and his supporters, the answer appears to be: not much.


That’s important, because the political initiative is shifting back to the government.


Debate rages over whether Shorten’s generally measured and low-key
performance as opposition leader is a calculated tactic aimed at keeping
the focus on an unpopular government, or merely the result of a lack of
retail political talent.



Whatever the reason, one of the outcomes of Shorten’s relaxed style
is that the ALP has not landed any serious blows on the government.



In stark contrast to Abbott as opposition leader, Shorten has not
made himself into an attack dog, relentlessly tearing at the
government’s credibility and performance. Nor has he appointed a
suitable colleague to play that role – even when, in Anthony Albanese, a
rugged street fighter is close to hand.



In fact, you could make a good case that the government’s most damaging wounds after a year in office have been self-inflicted.


Shorten’s small target strategy is about to meet its first stern test. The reason? War and terror.


The government’s pivot to national security issues was apparent some
weeks ago – shortly after the MH17 disaster. When voters seemed to
reward Abbott and Julie Bishop for their activist role in responding to
the Ukrainian crisis, Abbott and his strategists drew the appropriate
conclusions.



The result has been an overt move to make national security the central theme of the Abbott government.


The renewed focus on security issues plays to the Coalition’s clear strength on such issue with voters. This week’s Essential poll,
for instance, ranks the government’s performance on a range of issues.
“Relations with other countries” ranks top, with a net positive rating
of +15 per cent. It’s the only positive, however. The Coalition is
polling in the negative for every other issue that Essential tested –
even its traditional strength of managing the economy, where it is
polling -6 per cent. On social policy issues like health and education,
it is polling in the negative 20s.



No wonder the issues of war and terror seem so attractive to the government.


And so the drums of war have started to beat. We’ve committed to a military intervention in Iraq. New anti-terror laws have been announced. The terrorism threat level has been raised (supposedly a decision made by ASIO, rather than the government, but obviously one welcomed by the current administration).


And today we’ve seen the largest counter-terrorism operation in domestic history, with coordinated raids throughout the suburbs of Brisbane and Sydney.


The media has been told that the raids have foiled a plot to kidnap
and behead a random citizen, in apparent homage to the televised killing
of western journalists by the Islamic State.



Whether this is true, and how much evidence the police have to
substantiate the allegation, will only be revealed once those arrested
are brought before the courts.



So far, we know only of 22-year old Omarjan Azari, who has been charged with conspiracy to prepare for a terrorist attack.


Given the social media presence of Islamic State, and the well-known
tendency for military intervention in the Middle East to radicalize
small groups of extremists in western nations, the raids must clearly be
taken seriously.



But the political bonus for the government is clear. With a real
home-grown terror plot to point to, the scare campaign on Islamic terror
will only intensify.



All of this means Labor is now at a cross-roads. Pragmatic counsel
suggests that Shorten’s decision to stay in lock step behind the
government on national security has removed the opportunity for the
Coalition to attack Labor as soft on terror. But it also limits his
ability to campaign against the budget.



For the time being, there is nothing Labor can do but stay quiet and intone motherhood statements of patriotism and concern.


But the terror headlines also impair Labor's ability to keep the
political focus on domestic issues. What a pity Shorten didn’t make more
of the initiative when they had it.



That’s history now. The initiative has passed to the Coalition. The
terror scare will almost certainly dominate federal politics for the
rest of this year. 










Wednesday 17 September 2014

What Should Shorten Do? - The AIM Network

What Should Shorten Do? - The AIM Network



What Should Shorten Do?














All the latest polls give Labor a clear lead over their Coalition
opposition. In fact the latest Essential poll shows disapproval on every
issue except foreign policy and Labor has a 53% to 47%
two-party-preferred lead.



You might ask what then Bill Shorten is doing wrong. In spite of a
clear lead in the polls he has of late come under fire for his inability
to cut through as Opposition Leader. Even on the pages of this blog he
has been criticised for an inability to confront his opponent,
communicate policy or at least differentiate it.



Leading your Party in Opposition must surely be a job you wouldn’t
wish on your worst enemy. It’s a thankless, powerless task that has few
positives but comes with enormous expectations from those who follow
you.



Releasing policy is considered precarious until the election campaign
begins. The media focus on the incumbent and often a 10 second grab on
the nightly news is about all one can expect. Often you are damned if
you support something with bi-partisan intent or damned if you don’t.



Your followers have a “why doesn’t he stick it up ‘em” mentality that
is laced with an unrealistic desire to win every argument along the
way.



And in their urgent desire to obtain office they don’t take into
account the re-thinking of policy and party structures necessary to win
back government, and the work involved in doing so. Abbott made the
mistake of not formulating policy in opposition and is paying dearly for
it now.



More often than not you are likely to have your focus on the polls,
whilst at the same time, be wondering who might have the knife raised
above your head conspiring to unseat you. In Parliament your
effectiveness is limited, and you can only ask questions that your
opponents are not required to answer.



It is all made the more difficult when your own ability is limited by
your personal capacity to deliver succinct messages because people have
an expectation that you should have the presentation skills of a Barack
Obama or Bill Clinton. Shorten has none of their eloquence, instead
showing a distinct inarticulateness that is at times depressive. Often
he comes over as just another apparatchik or Union boss. As a
communicator he lacks charisma and personality.



So opposition leaders tend to come over as unconstructive, having
nothing good to say, or just carpers. Abbott of course made a virtue of
it. (More later).



Having said that, Australia has not been blessed with charismatic
leaders with a passion that excites and inspires. Howard, Gillard, Rudd,
and now Abbott have been dour, if not intelligent, individuals who
would hardly enthuse one to alight from bed each morning let alone be
excited by ideas emanating from enlightened and sagacious minds.



You would have to go back to the period of Whitlam, Hawke, and
Keating to experience the exhilaration that might come about with an
enthusiasm for what might be possible through the political process.



Brendan Nelson, Kim Beazley, Mark Latham, Simon Crean, John Hewson,
Andrew Peacock, Malcolm Turnbull, and Alexander Downer all suffered from
the helplessness of opposition and failed as leaders despite their
aptitude.



My personal view, as an aside, is that Kim Beazley would have made a
fine Prime Minister had he obtained office. And he nearly did.



Tony Abbott it must be said turned the negativity and all the
difficulty of opposition into a virtue. Whether it was intentional or
not we might never know. But the personality of the man gives us a good
indication. I doubt that we will ever see another opposition leader like
Abbott.



Why? Well only a person of Abbott’s character, or lack of, could do
what he did. By the sheer force of erasing all pretense to decency he
imposed himself on the Australian people, telling lie after lie, day
after day and week after week on a scale hitherto inexperienced by an
electorate well and truly sick of politics. He said “no” to anything and
everything with propaganda like intensity and the people never realised
the wrongs that would eventually be perpetrated on them.



He had the assistance of a newspaper baron equally deficient in
decency, in Rupert Murdoch, and a government preoccupied with leadership
squabbles rather than good government.



One year in it is demonstrably apparent that a daily avalanche of
Abbott style deleterious destructive opposition might gain you
government and give you power, but it makes the task of transposing
yourself into a credible statesman-like Prime Minister almost
impossible.



So what should Shorten do?


Well he could just sit pat and let Abbott’s self-destruction take its
course. But as I see it Bill Shorten, at this time in our political
history, has been handed a unique gift. The opportunity to create a
two-year narrative about the decline in our democracy and Abbott’s
involvement in it. It’s an invitation to do the same as Abbott did. Re
define what opposition is, and do so, in a resoundingly positive way.



Acknowledge the faults, the corruption on both sides together with
the destruction of our parliamentary conventions and institutions. Shout
the need for a new democracy as often as Abbott said “Stop the Boats”.



In every utterance say that good democracies can only deliver good
government and outcomes if the electorate demands it. Deliver a campaign
message that speaks to young and old alike by appealing to people to
participate in a new democracy where all policy is cantered on the
common good. I can hear the first sentence of his first speech:



“I speak to all who have a common interest in renewing our democracy regardless of ideological association”.

Where did all the voters go, and why?


Indeed, where did they go? Mysteriously, 3.3 million eligible voters
went missing at the last election. That is a whopping 15% more than the
previous one.



There is something fundamentally wrong when, despite a huge
recruitment drive by the Australian Electoral Commission, 1.22 million
citizens failed to enrol to vote, and 400,000, or one-third of the
non-registrants, were aged 18 to 24. Additionally, 760,000 House of
Representatives ballots were informal – about 6 per cent – up more than
0.3 per cent from the 2010 election.



Who carried the loss? Our democracy did.


Unlike the US and the UK, who both have voluntary voting systems, we
have a compulsory one. We shouldn’t need to entice voters to the polling
booth, but something has changed. It seems that in increasing numbers
our citizens are walking away from their obligation.



Are they just morons who we should ignore anyway, or are there other
reasons? I don’t in the least subscribe to that moronic theory. I
believe that most of these people made a conscious decision not to vote
because they have become disenchanted with the system. Who can blame
them?



In 2010, 93 per cent of eligible people voted in Australia. In the
US, about 60 per cent of the population voted, and in the UK it is about
65 per cent.



What would happen if the lost voters returned? Recent analysis of the
election result suggests that fifteen of the Coalition’s new seats are
held on very thin margins. Eleven seats have margins of less than 4000
voters. In essence, the election was a lot tighter than was first
suggested. Theoretically, this means that it would only take about
30,000 people to change their vote to change the government.



Answering the “what if” question may be complex, but simply put, it
lies in a worldwide dissatisfaction with the practice of traditional
Western politics – left vs right. People who once saw politics as tough
but with an ability to compromise now see it as tough but indecent. It
is now an institution of power that drives self-interest and ignores the
common good. If we look around the world, wealth has become the measure
of success and the rich are becoming wealthier at an alarming rate. In
the history of this nation the rich have never been so openly brazen.



Something will have to break or there will be a revolution. Even
Americans no longer believe the dream that has been instilled in them
since birth, that they all have an equal opportunity of success. It
simply doesn’t exist.



What should Shorten do?


There is no doubt that the Australian political system is in need of repair, but it is not beyond it.


Labor has taken a small but important first step in allowing a
greater say in the election of its leader, however it still has a reform
mountain to climb. Besides internal reform that engages its members, it
needs to look at ways of opening our democracy to new ways of doing
politics: ways that engage those that are in a political malaise so that
they feel part of the decision-making process again.



Some examples of this are fixed terms, and the genuine reform of
Question Time with an independent Speaker. Mark Latham even advocates
(among other things) its elimination in a new book. In fact he has many
suggestions of considerable merit.



Shorten needs to promote the principle of transparency by advocating
things like no advertising in the final month of an election campaign,
and policies and costing submitted in the same time frame. You can add
reform of the Senate into this mix, and perhaps some form of citizen
initiated referendum. Also things like implementing marriage equality
and a form of a National ICAC. Perhaps even a 10 point common good
caveat on all legalisation.



He needs to convince people of a collective democracy that involves
the people can be creative and exciting one. In a future world dependent
on innovation it will be ideas that determine government, and not the
pursuit of power for power’s sake.



His narrative must convince the lost voters who have left our
democracy to return (and I am assuming that most would be Labor), it has
to turn its own ideology on its head, re-examine it, and then
reintroduce it as an enlightened opposite to the Tea Party politics that
conservatism has descended into.



It must promote and vigorously argue the case for action against
growing inequality in all its nefarious guises, casting off its
socialist tag and seeing policy in common good versus elitist terms. The
same fight must also be had for the future of the planet.



It must turn its attention to the young, and have the courage to ask
of them that they should go beyond personal desire and aspiration and
accomplish not the trivial, but greatness. That they should not allow
the morality they have inherited from good folk to be corrupted by the
immorality of right-wing political indoctrination.



It might even advocate lowering the voting age to sixteen (16 year
olds are given that right in the Scottish referendum). An article I read
recently suggested the teaching of politics from Year 8, with
eligibility to vote being automatic if you were on the school roll.
Debates would be part of the curriculum and voting would be supervised
on the school grounds. With an aging population the young would then not
feel disenfranchised. Now that’s radical thinking; the sort of thing
that commands respect. It might also ensure voters for life.



Why did the voters leave?


How has democracy worldwide become such a basket case? Unequivocally
it can be traced to a second-rate Hollywood actor, a bad haircut, and in
Australia a small bald-headed man of little virtue. They all had one
thing in common. This can be observed in this statement (paraphrased):



“There is no such thing as society. There are only
individuals making their way. The poor shall be looked after by the drip
down effect of the rich”.

Since Margaret Thatcher made that statement and the subsequent reins
of the three, unregulated capitalism has insinuated its ugliness on
Western Society and now we have an absurdly evil growth in corporate and
individual wealth and an encroaching destruction of the middle and
lower classes. These three have done democracy a great disservice.



Where once bi-partisanship flourished in proud democracies, it has
been replaced with the politics of hatred and extremism. Where
compromise gets in the way of power, and power rules the world.



3.3 Million Australians have tuned out of politics because of the
destabilisation of leadership, corruption on both sides, the negativity
and lies of Tony Abbott, the propaganda of a right-wing monopoly owned
media, and the exploitation of its Parliament by Abbott. Somehow the
lost voters must be given a reason to return. A reason that is valid and
worthwhile. A reason that serves the collective and engages people in
the process, and a politic for the social good of all – one that rewards
personal initiative but at the same time recognises the basic human
right of equality of opportunity.



We need a robust but decent political system that is honest, decent,
and transparent, and where respect is the order of the day. A political
system where ideas of foresight surpass ideological politics, greed,
disrespect, and truth. Where respect, civility and trust are part of
vigorous debate and not just uninvited words in the process.



“The right to vote is the gift our democracy gives. If
political parties (and media barons, for that matter) choose by their
actions to destroy the people’s faith in democracy’s principles and
conventions then they are in fact destroying the very thing that enables
them to exist”.

The reader might determine that the writer is an idealist of long standing. That is so and I make no apologies.


There is much in the way of common sense to support the narrative I
suggest but would a politician of Bill Shorten’s ilk take the plunge. I
doubt it. He would have to turn conventional politics on its head.



But a few well-chosen words can create an image hitherto unrecognised.


Like this:





Monday 15 September 2014

You Bloody Idiots! - The AIM Network

You Bloody Idiots! - The AIM Network





You Bloody Idiots!











There is madness in the air and to deliberately
mis-quote George Santayana, those that do not pay attention to history
are bound to repeat it. That is exactly what Tony Abbott and his
government are doing and why should we expect anything different from
someone who is so devoid of anything original all he can do is follow
the leader like sheep follow the shepherd.
Paul McGeough’s analysis in Monday’s Age
newspaper is spot on. Fools rush in where wise men would bide their
time. Tony Abbott is sending 600 military personnel and six ageing
aircraft into a conflict with no idea what he is getting involved in,
what the strategy is, or what the time frame is. My only reaction when I
heard this latest piece of news was to say, ‘You bloody idiots’.


isilWhat
does he seriously think 6 jets and 200 military advisors can do? More
importantly, was he asleep during the first decade of this century? How
many jets does Saudi Arabia have? How many does Egypt have? What about
Iran, Jordan, Turkey? What are they doing to intervene in this conflict?
This is their turf; their area of responsibility. Would any of those
countries send their jets to Fiji or Samoa or Nauru if there was an
outbreak of unspeakable violence there?


In an area of the world where conflict has been raging in one form or
another for over 1000 years, where kingdoms and dictatorships have been
the norm, where paper thin democracies struggle to define themselves,
are we going to save them from themselves?


I think not!

How simple-minded this government is. How pathetic is the Labor
opposition that so meekly falls into line as if there was no other
position it could take. I well remember how staunchly Labor opposed the
war in Vietnam and our involvement in it. Arthur Calwell stood firm.
Gough Whitlam stood firm. In the end they were right. Their views
prevailed. But not before the Liberal government continued to increase
our commitment to that conflict and not before 500 Australian soldiers
died in a civil war that even our current Governor-General, himself a
decorated military man, said was a mistake. How many of our soldiers
died in Afghanistan and for what? Does anyone seriously think
Afghanistan is stable? Does anyone seriously think the Taliban are
defeated?


heraldWhere
are the voices of dissent now? Who will oppose this absurd decision?
Don’t look to the mainstream media. Monday’s headline in the Herald-Sun
tells us quite clearly where their support lies. ‘Ready for War’.
Really? You stupid, stupid people.


I would not even give Abbott the credit for doing this as a means of
saving his political hide. That would be praising him.  He just isn’t
that smart. This is pure Santamaria ideology. But Labor should know
better. They ended our involvement in Vietnam. They have a
conscience.They should know better.



Share this:







Let's tell Bill Shorten a few cold, hard truths - The AIM Network

Let's tell Bill Shorten a few cold, hard truths - The AIM Network


BILL SHORTEN PLEASE RESIGN AND GIVE WAY TO ANTHONY ALBANESE
WINSTON CLOSE

Let’s tell Bill Shorten a few cold, hard truths











Last May when Labor endeavoured to boast what they stood for, the following email was circulated en masse:



Some time ago I wrote to you asking you to
complete a survey so I could see what you believed was Labor’s direction
for the future.
Today our party – the oldest organised labour party in
the world – is undergoing a process of grassroots reform and
revitalisation. That’s why this was such a tremendous opportunity to
hear from you.
I wanted to make sure all of you got a chance to see
the results of this survey and what our community’s vision for the
future of Labor was. Read
our report and take your chance to share my favourite part of this job
– listening to people about the things that matter most.
Thanks for your support,
George Wright
National Secretary


For whatever reason, I didn’t complete the survey. Nonetheless, I was interested to read the report.


Sadly, it told me little, but I was extremely disappointed with the summary. Here is a part of it:


The policy areas of importance to supporters, namely
healthcare, climate change, the NBN & schools funding, were policy
areas already championed by the Party.

So why was I disappointed? I was disappointed because Labor’s vision
for the future doesn’t include on-shore processing of asylum seekers.



Now people have a chance to right that wrong, with an invitation to engage with Bill Shorten, who sent the following email:



The only thing standing in the way of Tony Abbott winning another term in 2016 is our ability to stand together.


We were built by the grassroots, for the benefit of the people. And that’s how we’ll win.


Brought together by the belief we can build a better, fairer country, we all share a common passion. I want to hear your ideas about how we can rebuild Labor for the better.


Join me in a video call next Tuesday 23 September to chat about how we need to rebuild and win.


I am honoured to lead Labor; but I recognise it is a privilege built
on the hard work and passion of thousands of like-minded Australians who
stand shoulder to shoulder with you.



We can only stop Tony Abbott if we all stand together, focused on what unites us — that’s why I want to hear from you about how we do that.


I’ll be taking your questions live on Twitter with your host ACT Senator Kate Lundy. Click here to RSVP and find out more.


Like me, you must find it hard to watch what Tony Abbott’s Government
is doing to our country. But the damage will only continue — and get
worse — if he wins again in 2016.



Rebuilding Labor begins with you and me; let’s talk about it next Tuesday.


Thanks for standing with me on this,


Bill



Never have I read such limp, superficial fluff.


He’s saying one thing yet doing the other.


But if he wants my opinion I can think of a couple of things to add to their disgraceful asylum seeker policy. For starters, Bill Shorten’s response to a federal ICAC:



“I think we’ve all been shocked at the revelations that
have come out in NSW ICAC,” he has said. “I don’t believe the same case
has yet existed to demonstrate these problems are prevalent in the
national political debate in Australia.”

I find that gutless and pathetic. The NSW ICAC has seen Liberal Party
politicians dropping like flies and whilst it doesn’t suggest that
there is corruption in the federal ranks, Bill must surely be aware that
there are tens of thousands of voters out there with eyebrows raised.
It’s a question they’d like answered. And it seriously needs to be
answered.



I’m also disappointed at the bipartisan support Bill Shorten has given Tony Abbott in involving us in another war. John Kelly expressed it succinctly (and better than I could) when he wrote:



How simple-minded this government is. How pathetic is the
Labor opposition that so meekly falls into line as if there was no
other position it could take.

I’ll be telling Bill Shorten what I think. It’s a chance for all of
us to do the same. He wrote “We can only stop Tony Abbott if we all
stand together”. Lately I’m beginning to feel that it’s Tony Abbott he’s
standing with . . . not the rest of us.




Share this: